Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

1/26

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Date/Time of Request: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:52 Eastern

Client Identifier: PATRON ACCESS

Database: SCTFIND

Citation Text: 81 S.Ct. 1684

Lines: 1548

Documents: 1

Images: 0

DEALS WITH THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,

West and their affiliates.

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

2/26

Supreme Court of the United States

Dollree MAPP, etc., Appellant,

v.

OHIO.

No. 236.

Argued March 29, 1961.

Decided June 19, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1961.

See 82 S.Ct. 23.

Prosecution for possession and control of obscenematerial. An Ohio Common Pleas Court rendered

judgment, and the defendant appealed. The Ohio

Supreme Court, 170 Ohio St. 427, 166 N.E.2d 387,

affirmed the judgment, and the defendant again ap-

pealed. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Clark, held

that evidence obtained by unconstitutional search

was inadmissible and vitiated conviction.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr.

Justice Whittaker dissented.

West Headnotes

[1] Criminal Law 110 394.4(1)

110 Criminal Law

110XVII Evidence

110XVII(I) Competency in General

110k394 Evidence Wrongfully Obtained

110k394.4 Unlawful Search or Seizure

110k394.4(1) k. In General. Most

Cited Cases

Rule excluding illegally seized evidence is of con-

stitutional origin. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.

[2] Federal Courts 170B 461

170B Federal Courts

170BVII Supreme Court

170BVII(B) Review of Decisions of Courts

of Appeals

170Bk460 Review on Certiorari

170Bk461 k. Questions Not Presented

Below or in Petition for Certiorari. Most Cited

Cases

(Formerly 170Bk452, 106k383(1))

Reasonableness of a search is in first instance for

trial court to determine. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 4.

[3] Criminal Law 110 394.4(1)

110 Criminal Law

110XVII Evidence





Cited Cases

All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in

violation of the Constitution is constitutionally in-

admissible in state courts. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.

4.

[4] Constitutional Law 92 4655

92 Constitutional Law

92XXVII Due Process

92XXVII(H) Criminal Law

92XXVII(H)5 Evidence and Witnesses

92k4655 k. Improperly Obtained Evid-

ence; Suppression. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 92k266(5), 92k266)

Criminal Law 110 394.4(1)

110 Criminal Law

110XVII Evidence





Cited Cases

Evidence obtained by unconstitutional search was

inadmissible, in state prosecution, and vitiated con-

81 S.Ct. 1684 Page 1

367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 84 A.L.R.2d 933, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 86 Ohio Law Abs. 513, 16 O.O.2d 384

(Cite as: 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684)

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&DocName=82SCT23&FindType=Yhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960115689http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960115689http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk460http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28H%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28H%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28H%295http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4655http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4655http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4655http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4655http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28H%295http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28H%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk461http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk460http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394.4http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k394http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28I%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960115689http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960115689http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&DocName=82SCT23&FindType=Y

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

3/26

viction, under the Fourteenth Amendment, overrul-

ing Wolf v. Colorado, 1949, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.C t.

1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782. R.C.Ohio 2905.34;

U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 4, 14.



92XXVII Due Process

92XXVII(A) In General

92k3848 Relationship to Other Constitu-

tional Provisions; Incorporation

92k3854 k. Fourth Amendment. Most

Cited Cases

(Formerly 92k319.5(1), 92k274(5), 92k274(2),

92k266(5), 92k255, 349k7(2))

The Fourth Amendment's right of privacy is en-

forceable against the states through the due process

clause. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 4, 14.

[6] Criminal Law 110 522(1)

110 Criminal Law

110XVII Evidence

110XVII(T) Confessions

110k522 Threats and Fear

110k522(1) k. In General. Most Cited

Cases

The rule requiring exclusion of a coerced confes-

sion overrides relevant rules of evidence, regardless

of the incidence of such conduct by police, slight or

frequent.

[7] Courts 106 489(1)

106 Courts

106VII Concurrent and Conflicting Jurisdiction

106VII(B) State Courts and United States

Courts

106k489 Exclusive or Concurrent Juris-

diction

106k489(1) k. In General. Most Cited

Cases

Healthy federalism depends upon avoidance of

needless conflict between state and federal courts.



92XXVII Due Process

92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica-

tions

92XXVII(G)22 Privacy and Sexual Mat-

ters

92k4450 k. In General. Most Cited

Cases

(Formerly 92k274(5), 92k254)

The right to privacy embodied in Fourth Amend-

ment is enforceable against states in same manner

and to like effect as other basic rights secured by

the due process clause. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 4,

14.

**1685 Mr. *643 A. L. Kearns, Cleveland, Ohio,

for appellant.

Mr. Bernard A. Berkman, Cleveland, Ohio, for

American Civil Liberties Union and the Ohio Civil

Liberties Union, as amici curiae.

Mrs. ,Gertrude Bauer Mahon, Cleveland, Ohio, for

appellee.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the

Court.

Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having

had in her possession and under her control certain

lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photo-

graphs in violation of s 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised

Code.FN1

As officially stated in the syllabus to its

opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her

conviction was valid though based primarily upon

the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious

books and pictures unlawfully seized during an un-

lawful search of defendant's home * * *. 170 Ohio

St. 427-428, 166 N.E.2d 387, 388.

FN1. The statute provides in pertinent part

that

No person shall knowingly * * * have in

his possession or under his control an ob-

scene, lewd, or lascivious book (or) * * *

picture * * *.

81 S.Ct. 1684 Page 2


(Cite as: 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3848http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3854http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3854http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3854http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28T%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28T%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k522http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k522%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k522%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k522%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106VII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106VII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106k489http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106k489%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=106k489%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=106k489%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%2922http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4450http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4450http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4450http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=388http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=388http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=388http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=388http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4450http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4450http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4450http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%2922http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=106k489%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=106k489%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106k489%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106k489http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106VII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106VIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=106http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k522%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k522%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k522%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k522http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVII%28T%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3854http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3854http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3854http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3848http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

4/26

Whoever violates this section shall be

fined not less than two hundred nor more

than two thousand dollars or imprisoned

not less than one nor more than seven

years, or both.

*644 On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police of-

ficers arrived at appellant's residence in that city

pursuant to information that a person (was) hiding

out in the home, who was wanted for questioning in

connection with a recent bombing, and that there

was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being

hidden in the home. Miss Mapp and her daughter

by a former marriage lived on the top floor of the

two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that

house, the officers knocked on the door and deman-ded entrance but appellant, after telephoning her at-

torney, refused to admit them without a search war-

rant. They advised their headquarters of the situ-

ation and undertook a surveillance of the house.

The officers again sought entrance some three

hours later when four or more additional officers

arrived on the **1686 scene. When Miss Mapp did

not come to the door immediately, at least one of

the several doors to the house was forcibly openedFN2

and the policemen gained admittance. Mean-

while Miss Mapp's attorney arrived, but the of-ficers, having secured their own entry, and continu-

ing in their definance of the law, would permit him

neither to see Miss Mapp nor to enter the house. It

appears that Miss Mapp was halfway down the

stairs from the upper floor to the front door when

the officers, in this highhanded manner, broke into

the hall. She demanded to see the search warrant. A

paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one

of the officers. She grabbed the warrant and

placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued in which

the officers recovered the piece of paper and as a

result of which they handcuffed appellant because

she had been belligerent *645 in resisting their of-

ficial rescue of the warrant from her person. Run-

ning roughshod over appellant, a policeman

grabbed her, twisted (her) hand, and she yelled

(and) pleaded with him because it was hurting.

Appellant, in handcuffs, was then forcibly taken up-

stairs to her bedroom where the officers searched a

dresser, a chest of drawers, a closet and some suit-

cases. They also looked into a photo album and

through personal papers belonging to the appellant.

The search spread to the rest of the second floor in-

cluding the child's bedroom, the living room, the

kitchen and a dinette. The basement of the building

and a trunk found therein were also searched. The

obscene materials for possession of which she was

ultimately convicted were discovered in the course

of that widespread search.

FN2. A police officer testified that we did

pry the screen door to gain entrance; the

attorney on the scene testified that a po-liceman tried * * * to kick in the door

and then broke the glass in the door and

somebody reached in and opened the door

and let them in; the appellant testified that

The back door was broken.

At the trial no search warrant was produced by the

prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one ex-

plained or accounted for. At best, There is, in the

record, considerable doubt as to whether there ever

was any warrant for the search of defendant's

home. 170 Ohio St. at page 430, 166 N.E.2d atpage 389. The Ohio Supreme Court believed a

reasonable argument could be made that the con-

viction should be reversed because the methods'

employed to obtain the (evidence) were such as to

offend a sense of justice, but the court found de-

terminative the fact that the evidence had not been

taken from defendant's person by the use of brutal

or offensive physical force against defendant. 170

Ohio St. at page 431, 166 N.E.2d at pages 389-390.

The State says that even if the search were made

without authority, or otherwise unreasonably, it isnot prevented from using the unconstitutionally

seized evidence at trial, citing Wolf v. People of

State of Colorado, 1949, 338 U.S. 25, at page 33,

69 S.Ct. 1359. at page 1364, 93 L.Ed. 1782, in

which this Court did indeed hold that in a prosecu-

tion in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth

81 S.Ct. 1684 Page 3


(Cite as: 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=389http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=389http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=389http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=389http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1364http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1364http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1364http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=470&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=470&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1364http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1364http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1364http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=389http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=389http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=389http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=578&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960115689&ReferencePosition=389

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

5/26

Amendment*646 does not forbid the admission of

evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and

seizure. On this appeal, of which we have noted

probable jurisdiction, 364 U.S. 868, 81 S.Ct. 111, 5

L.Ed.2d 90, it is urged once again that we review

that holding.FN3

FN3. Other issues have been raised on this

appeal but, in the view we have taken of

the case, they need not be decided. Al-

though appellant chose to urge what may

have appeared to be the surer ground for

favorable disposition and did not insist that

Wolf be overruled, the amicus curiae, who

was also permitted to participate in the oral

argument, did urge the Court to overruleWolf.

I.

Seventy-five years ago, in Boyd v. United States,

1886, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 6 S.Ct. 524, 532, 29 L.Ed.

746, considering the **1687 FourthFN4

and Fifth

Amendments as running almost into each other'FN5

on the facts before it, this Court held that the

doctrines of those Amendments

FN4. The right of the people to be secure

in their persons, houses, papers, and ef-

fects, against unreasonable searches and

seizures, shall not be violated, and no war-

rants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

supported by oath or affirmation, and par-

ticularly describing the place to be

searched and the persons or things to be

seized.

FN5. The close connection between the

concepts later embodied in these two

Amendments had been noted at least as

early as 1765 by Lord Camden, on whose

opinion in Entick v. Carrington, 19 How-

ell's State Trials 1029, the Boyd court drew

heavily. Lord Camden had noted, at 1073:

It is very certain, that the law obligeth no

man to accuse himself; because the neces-

sary means of compelling self-accusation,

falling upon the innocent as well as the

guilty, would be both cruel and unjust; and

it should seem, that search for evidence is

disallowed upon the same principle. There

too the innocent would be confounded with

the guilty.

'apply to all invasions on the part of the government

and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home

and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his

doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, *647 that

constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the

invasion of his indefeasible right of personal secur-

ity, personal liberty and private property * * *.Breaking into a house and opening boxes and draw-

ers are circumstances of aggravation; but any for-

cible and compulsory extortion of a man's own

testimony or of his private papers to be used as

evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his

goods, is within the condemnation * * * (of those

Amendments).'

The Court noted that

'constitutional provisions for the security of person

and property should be liberally construed. * * * It

is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitu-tional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy

encroachments thereon.' At page 635 of 116 U.S.,

at page 535 of 6 S.Ct.

In this jealous regard for maintaining the integrity

of individual rights, the Court gave life to Madis-

on's prediction that independent tribunals of justice

* * * will be naturally led to resist every encroach-

ment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the

Constitution by the declaration of rights. I Annals

of Cong. 439 (1789). Concluding, the Court spe-

cifically referred to the use of the evidence thereseized as unconstitutional. At page 638 of 116

U.S., at page 536 of 6 S.Ct.

Less than 30 years after Boyd, this Court, in Weeks

v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, at pages

391-392, 34 S.Ct. 341, at page 344, 58 L.Ed. 652,

81 S.Ct. 1684 Page 4


(Cite as: 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960208075http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960208075http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=532http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=532http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=532http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=635http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1886180156http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=638http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=638http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1886180156http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1886180156http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=638http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=638http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1886180156http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=635http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=532http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=532http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1886180156&ReferencePosition=532http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960208075http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960208075

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

6/26

stated that

'the 4th Amendment * * * put the courts of the

United States and Federal officials, in the exercise

of their power and authority, under limitations and

restraints (and) * * * forever secure(d) the people,

their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

all unreasonable searches and seizures under the

guise of law * * * and the duty of giving to it force

and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted under our

Federal system with the enforcement of the laws.'

*648 Specifically dealing with the use of the evid-

ence unconstitutionally seized, the Court con-

cluded:

If letters and private documents can thus be seized

and held and used in evidence against a citizen ac-

cused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth

Amendment declaring his right to be secure against

such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so

far as those thus placed are concerned, might as

well be stricken **1688 from the Constitution. The

efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the

guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are

not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great prin-

ciples established by years of endeavor and suffer-

ing which have resulted in their embodiment in the

fundamental law of the land. At page 393 of 232U.S., at page 344 of 34 S.Ct.

Finally, the Court in that case clearly stated that use

of the seized evidence involved a denial of the

constitutional rights of the accused. At page 398 of

232 U.S., at page 346 of 34 S.Ct. Thus, in the year

1914, in the Weeks case, this Court for the first

time held that in a federal prosecution the Fourth

Amendment barred the use of evidence secured

through an illegal search and seizure. Wolf v.

People of State of Colorado, supra, 338 U.S. at

page 28, 69 S.Ct. at page 1361. This Court has eversince required of federal law officers a strict adher-

ence to that command which this Court has held to

be a clear, specific, and constitutionally required-

even if judically implied-deterrent safeguard

without insistence upon which the Fourth Amend-

ment would have been reduced to a form of

words. Holmes J., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v.

United States, 1920, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct.

182, 183, 64 L.Ed. 319. It meant, quite simply, that

conviction by means of unlawful seizures and en-

forced confessions * * * should find no sanction in

the judgments of the courts * * *, Weeks v. United

States, supra, 232 U.S. at page 392, 34 S.Ct. at page

344, and that such evidence shall not be used at

all. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,

supra, 251 U.S. at page 392, 40 S.Ct. at page 183.

*649 [1] There are in the cases of this Court some

passing references to the Weeks rule as being one

of evidence. But the plain and unequivocal lan-

guage of Weeks-and its later paraphrase in Wolf-to

the effect that the Weeks rule is of constitutionalorigin, remains entirely undisturbed. In Byars v.

United States, 1927, 273 U.S. 28, at pages 29- 30,

47 S.Ct. 248, at pages 248-249, 71 L.Ed. 520, a un-

animous Court declared that the doctrine (cannot)

* * * be tolerated under our constitutional system,

that evidences of crime discovered by a federal of-

ficer in making a search without lawful warrant

may be used against the victim of the unlawful

search where a timely challenge has been inter-

posed. (Emphasis added.) The Court, in Olmstead

v. United States, 1928, 277 U.S. 438, at page 462,

48 S.Ct. 564, 567, 72 L.Ed. 944, in unmistakablelanguage restated the Weeks rule:

The striking outcome of the Weeks case and those

which followed it was the sweeping declaration that

the Fourth Amendment, although not referring to or

limiting the use of evidence in court, really forbade

its introduction if obtained by government officers

through a violation of the amendment.

In McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 332, at

pages 339-340, 63 S.Ct. 608, at page 612, 87 L.Ed.

819, we note this statement:(A) conviction in the federal courts, the foundation

of which is evidence obtained in disregard of liber-

ties deemed fundamental by the Constitution, can-

not stand. Boyd v. United States * * * Weeks v.

United States * * *. And this Court has, on Consti-

tutional grounds, set aside convictions, both in the

81 S.Ct. 1684 Page 5


(Cite as: 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=393http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=393http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914100496http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=398http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=398http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914100496http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1361http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1361http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1361http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1927123689&ReferencePosition=248http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1927123689&ReferencePosition=248http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1927123689&ReferencePosition=248http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1928126400&ReferencePosition=567http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1928126400&ReferencePosition=567http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1928126400&ReferencePosition=567http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1943120598&ReferencePosition=612http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1943120598&ReferencePosition=612http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1943120598&ReferencePosition=612http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1943120598&ReferencePosition=612http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1943120598&ReferencePosition=612http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1943120598&ReferencePosition=612http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1928126400&ReferencePosition=567http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1928126400&ReferencePosition=567http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1928126400&ReferencePosition=567http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1927123689&ReferencePosition=248http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1927123689&ReferencePosition=248http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1927123689&ReferencePosition=248http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=344http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1920115968&ReferencePosition=183http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1361http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1361http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1361http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914100496http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=398http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=398http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914100496http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=393http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100496&ReferencePosition=393

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

7/26

federal and state courts, which were based upon

confessions secured by protracted and repeated

questioning of ignorant and untutored persons, in

whose minds the power of officers was greatly

magnified*650 * * * or who have been unlawfully

held incommunicado without advice of friends or

counsel * * *.'

Significantly, in McNabb, the Court did then pass

on to formulate a rule of evidence, saying, (i)n the

view we take of **1689 the case, however, it be-

comes unnecessary to reach the Constitutional issue

(for) * * * (t)he principles governing the admissib-

ility of evidence in federal criminal trials have not

been restricted * * * to those derived solely from

the Constitution. At pages 340-341 of 318 U.S., atpage 613 of 63 S.Ct.

II.

In 1949, 35 years after Weeks was announced, this

Court, in Wolf v. People of State of Colorado,

supra, again for the first time,FN6

discussed the ef-

fect of the Fourth Amendment upon the States

through the operation of the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment. It said:

FN6. See, however, National Safe Deposit

Co. v. Stead, 1914, 232 U.S. 58, 34 S.Ct.

209, 58 L.Ed. 504, and Adams v. People of

State of New York, 1904, 192 U.S. 585, 24

S.Ct. 372, 48 L.Ed. 575.

(W)e have no hesitation in saying that were a State

affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into

privacy it would run counter to the guaranty of the

Fourteenth Amendment. At page 28 of 338 U.S., at

page 1361 of 69 S.Ct.

Nevertheless, after declaring that the security of

one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the po-

lice is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty

and as such enforceable against the States through

the Due Process Clause,' cf. Palko v. State of Con-

necticut, 1937, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82

L.Ed. 288, and announcing that it stoutly ad-

here(d) to the Weeks decision, the Court decided

that the Weeks exclusionary rule would not then be

imposed upon the States as an essential ingredient

of the right. 338 U.S. at pages 27-29, 69 S.Ct. at

page 1362. The Court's reasons for not considering

essential to the *651 right to privacy, as a curb im-

posed upon the States by the Due Process Clause,

that which decades before had been posited as part

and parcel of the Fourth Amendment's limitations

upon federal encroachment of individual privacy,

were bottomed on factual considerations.

While they are not basically relevant to a decision

that the exclusionary rule is an essential ingredient

of the Fourth Amendment as the right it embodies

is vouchsafed against the States by the Due ProcessClause, we will consider the current validity of the

factual grounds upon which Wolf was based.

The Court in Wolf first stated that (t)he contrariety

of views of the States' on the adoption of the exclu-

sionary rule of Weeks was particularly impressive

( 338 U.S. at page 29, 69 S.Ct. at page 1362 ); and,

in this connection that it could not brush aside the

experience of States which deem the incidence of

such conduct by the police too slight to call for a

deterrent remedy * * * by overriding the (States')

relevant rules of evidence. At pages 31-32 of 338U.S., at page 1363 of 69 S.Ct. While in 1949, prior

to the Wolf case, almost two-thirds of the States

were opposed to the use of the exclusionary rule,

now, despite the Wolf case, more than half of those

since passing upon it, by their own legislative or ju-

dicial decision, have wholly or partly adopted or

adhered to the Weeks rule. See Elkins v. United

States, 1960, 364 U.S. 206, Appendix, at pages

224-232, 80 S.Ct. 1437, at pages 1448-1453, 4

L.Ed.2d 1669. Significantly, among those now fol-

lowing the rule is California, which, according to

its highest court, was compelled to reach that con-

clusion because other remedies have completely

failed to secure compliance with the constitutional

provisions * * *. People v. Cahan, 1955, 44 Cal.2d

434, 445, 282 P.2d 905, 911, 50 A.L.R.2d 5 13. In

connection with this California case, we note that

81 S.Ct. 1684 Page 6


(Cite as: 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1943120598&ReferencePosition=340http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1943120598http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914101184http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914101184http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914101184http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1904100313http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1904100313http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1904100313http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=28http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1937123063http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1937123063http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1937123063http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1362http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1362http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1362http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=31http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=31http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960122558http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960122558http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122558&ReferencePosition=1448http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122558&ReferencePosition=1448http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=107&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113670http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=107&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113670http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=107&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113670http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=107&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113670http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122558&ReferencePosition=1448http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122558&ReferencePosition=1448http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960122558http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960122558http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=31http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=31http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1362http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1362http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1362http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1937123063http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1937123063http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1937123063http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1949199999http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=28http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1904100313http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1904100313http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1904100313http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914101184http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914101184http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1914101184http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1943120598http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1943120598&ReferencePosition=340

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

8/26

the second basis elaborated in Wolf in support of its

failure to enforce the exclusionary doctrine against

the States was that other means of protection have

been afforded **1690 the *652 right to privacy.'FN7 338 U.S. at page 30, 69 S.Ct. at page 1 362.

The experience of California that such other remed-

ies have been worthless and futile is buttressed by

the experience of other States. The obvious futility

of relegating the Fourth Amendment of the protec-

tion of other remedies has, moreover, been *653 re-

cognized by this Court since Wolf. See Irvine v.

People of State of California, 1954, 347 U.S. 128,

137, 74 S.Ct. 381, 385, 98 L.Ed. 561.

FN7. Less than half of the States have any

criminal provisions relating directly to un-reasonable searches and seizures. The pun-

itive sanctions of the 23 States attempting

to control such invasions of the right of

privacy may be classified as follows:

Criminal Liability of Affiant for Malicious

Procurement of Search Warrant.-Ala.Code,

1958, Tit. 15, s 99; Alaska Comp.Laws

Ann.1949, s 66-7-15; Ar-

iz.Rev.Stat.Ann.1956, s 13-1454;

Cal.Pen.Code s 170; Fla.Stat.1959, s

933.16, F.S.A.; Ga.Code Ann.1953, s27-301; Idaho Code Ann.1948, s 18-709;

Iowa Code Ann., 1950, s 751.38;

Minn.Stat.Ann.1947, s 613.54;

Mont.Rev.Codes Ann.1947, s 94-35-122;

Nev.Rev.Stat. ss 199.130, 199.140;

N .J.Stat.Ann.1940, s 33:1-64;

N .Y.Penn.Law, s 1786, N.Y .Code

Crim.Proc. s 811; N.C.Gen.Stat.1953, s

15-27 (applies to officers ' only);

N.D.Century Code Ann.1960, ss 12-17-08,

29-29-18; Okla.Stat., 1951, Tit. 21, s 585,

Tit. 22, s 1239; Ore.Rev.Stat. s 141.990;

S.D.Code, 1939 (Supp.1960) s 34.9904;

Utah Code Ann.1953, s 77-54-21.

Criminal Liability of Magistrate Issuing

Warrant Without Supporting Affi-

davit.-N.C.Gen.Stat.1953, s 15-27;

Va.Code Ann., 1960 Replacement Volume,

s 19.1-89.

Criminal Liability of Officer Willfully Ex-

ceeding Authority of Search Warrant.-

Fla.Stat.Ann.1944, s 933.17; Iowa Code

Ann., 1950, s 751.39; Minn.Stat.Ann.1947,

s 613.54; Nev.Rev.Stat. s 199.450;

N.Y.Pen.Law, s 1847, N.Y.Code

Crim.Proc. s 812; N.D.Century Code

Ann.1960, ss 12-17-07, 29-29-19;

Okla.Stat.1951, Tit. 21, s 536, Tit. 22, s

1240; S.D.Code, 1939 (Supp.1960) s

34.9905; Tenn.Code Ann.1955, s 40-510;

Utah Code Ann.1953, s 77-54-22.

Criminal Liability of Officer for Search

with Invalid Warrant or no Warrant.-Idaho

Code Ann.1948, s 18-703;

Minn.Stat.Ann.1947, ss 613.53, 621.17;

Mo.Ann.Stat.1953, s 558.190;

Mont.Rev.Codes Ann.1947, s 94-3506;

N .J.Stat.Ann.1940, s 33:1-65;

N.Y.Pen.Law, s 1846; N.D.Century Code

Ann.1960, s 12-17-06;

Okla.Stat.Ann.1958, Tit. 21, s 535; Utah

Code Ann.1953, s 76-28-52; Va.Code

Ann.1960 Replacement Volume, s 19.1-88;Wash.Rev.Code ss 10.79.040, 10.79.045.

[2] Likewise, time has set its face against what

Wolf called the weighty testimony of People v.

Defore, 1926, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 5 85. There

Justice (then Judge) Cardozo, rejecting adoption of

the Weeks exclusionary rule in New York, had said

that (t)he Federal rule as it stands is either too

strict or too lax. 242 N.Y. at page 22, 150 N.E. at

page 588. However, the force of that reasoning has

been largely vitiated by later decisions of this

Court. These include the recent discarding of thesilver platter doctrine which allowed federal judi-

cial use of evidence seized in violation of the Con-

stitution by state agents, Elkins v. United States,

supra; the relaxation of the formerly strict require-

ments as to standing to challenge the use of evid-

ence thus seized, so that now the procedure of ex-

81 S.Ct. 1684 Page 7


(Cite as: 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1362http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=385http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=385http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=385http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000217&DocName=CAPES170&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS933.16&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS933.16&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS613.54&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000363&DocName=NVST199.130&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000363&DocName=NVST199.140&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000045&DocName=NJST33%3A1-64&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT21S585&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT22S1239&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000534&DocName=ORSTS141.990&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS933.17&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS933.17&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS613.54&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS613.54&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000363&DocName=NVST199.450&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT21S536&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT22S1240&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT22S1240&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS613.53&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS621.17&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000045&DocName=NJST33%3A1-65&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT21S535&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000259&DocName=WAST10.79.040&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000259&DocName=WAST10.79.045&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=577&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926100408http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=577&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926100408http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=577&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1926100408&ReferencePosition=588http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=577&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1926100408&ReferencePosition=588http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=577&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1926100408&ReferencePosition=588http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=577&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1926100408&ReferencePosition=588http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=577&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926100408http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=577&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926100408http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000259&DocName=WAST10.79.045&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000259&DocName=WAST10.79.040&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT21S535&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000045&DocName=NJST33%3A1-65&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS621.17&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS613.53&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT22S1240&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT22S1240&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT21S536&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000363&DocName=NVST199.450&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS613.54&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS613.54&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS933.17&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS933.17&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000534&DocName=ORSTS141.990&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT22S1239&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000165&DocName=OKSTT21S585&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000045&DocName=NJST33%3A1-64&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000363&DocName=NVST199.140&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000363&DocName=NVST199.130&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000044&DocName=MNSTS613.54&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS933.16&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000006&DocName=FLSTS933.16&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000217&DocName=CAPES170&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=385http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=385http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=385http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949199999&ReferencePosition=1362

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

9/26

clusion, ultimately referable to constitutional safe-

guards, is available to anyone even legitimately

on (the) premises' unlawfully searched, Jones v.

United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 257, 266-267, 80

S.Ct. 725, 734, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; and finally, the for-

mulation of a method to prevent state use of evid-

ence unconstitutionally seized by federal agents,

Rea v. United States, 1956, 350 U.S. 214, 76 S.C t.

292, 100 L.Ed. 233. Because there can be no fixed

formula, we are admittedly met with recurring

questions of the reasonableness of searches, but

less is not to be expected when dealing with a Con-

stitution, and, at any rate, (r) easonableness is in

the first instance for the (trial court) to determine.

**1691United States v. Rabinowitz, 1950, 339 U.S.

56, 63, 70 S.Ct. 430, 434, 94 L.Ed. 653 .

It, therefore, plainly appears that the factual consid-

erations supporting the failure of the Wolf Court to

include the Weeks exclusionary rule when it recog-

nized the enforceability of the right to privacy

against the States in 1949, while not basically rel-

evant to the constitutional consideration, could not,

in any analysis, now be deemed controlling.

*654 III.

[3][4] Some five years after Wolf, in answer to a

plea made here Term after Term that we overturn

its doctrine on applicability of the Weeks exclu-

sionary rule, this Court indicated that such should

not be done until the States had adequate oppor-

tunity to adopt or reject the (Weeks) rule. Irvine

v. People of State of California, supra, 347 U.S. at

page 134, 74 S.Ct. at page 384. There again it was

said:

Never until June of 1949 did this Court hold the

basic search-and-seizure prohibition in any way ap-

plicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amend-

ment. Ibid.

And only last Term, after again carefully re-

examining the Wolf doctrine in Elkins v. United

States, supra, the Court pointed out that the con-

trolling principles' as to search and seizure and the

problem of admissibility seemed clear ( 364 U.S.

at page 212, 1441 of 80 S.Ct.) until the announce-

ment in Wolf that the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment does not itself require state

courts to adopt the exclusionary rule of the Weeks

case. At page 213 of 364 U.S., at page 1442 of 80

S.Ct. At the same time, the Court pointed out, the

underlying constitutional doctrine which Wolf es-

tablished * * * that the Federal Constitution * * *

prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by

state officers' had undermined the foundation upon

which the admissibility of stateseized evidence in a

federal trial originally rested * * *. Ibid. The Court

concluded that it was therefore obliged to hold, al-

though it chose the narrower ground on which to doso, that all evidence obtained by an unconstitutional

search and seizure was inadmissible in a federal

court regardless of its source. Today we once again

examine Wolf's constitutional documentation of the

right to privacy free from unreasonable state intru-

sion, and, after its dozen years on our books, are led

by it to close the only *655 courtroom door remain-

ing open to evidence secured by official lawless-

ness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved

to all persons as a specific guarantee against that

very same unlawful conduct. We hold that all evid-

ence obtained by searches and seizures in violation

of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inad-

missible in a state court.

IV.

[5] Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy

has been declared enforceable against the States

through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth,

it is enforceable against them by the same sanction

of exclusion as is used against the Federal Govern-

ment. Were it otherwise, then just as without theWeeks rule the assurance against unreasonable fed-

eral searches and seizures would be a form of

words', valueless and undeserving of mention in a

perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties, so

too, without that rule the freedom from state inva-

sions of privacy would be so epemeral and so

81 S.Ct. 1684 Page 8


(Cite as: 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122488&ReferencePosition=734http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122488&ReferencePosition=734http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122488&ReferencePosition=734http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1956124967http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1956124967http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1950119762&ReferencePosition=434http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1950119762&ReferencePosition=434http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1950119762&ReferencePosition=434http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=384http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=384http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=384http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=384http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961202147&ReferencePosition=212http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961202147&ReferencePosition=212http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122558&ReferencePosition=213http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960122558http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960122558http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960122558http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1960122558http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122558&ReferencePosition=213http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961202147&ReferencePosition=212http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961202147&ReferencePosition=212http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=384http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=384http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1954118697&ReferencePosition=384http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1950119762&ReferencePosition=434http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1950119762&ReferencePosition=434http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1956124967http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1956124967http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122488&ReferencePosition=734http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122488&ReferencePosition=734http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960122488&ReferencePosition=734

8/9/2019 Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684

10/26

neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the

freedom from all brutish means of coercing evid-

ence as not to merit this Court's high regard as a

freedom implicit in the concept of ordered

liberty. At the time that the Court held in Wolf

that the Amendment was applicable to the States

through the Due Process Clause, the cases of this

Court, as we have seen, had steadfastly held that as

to federal officers the Fourth Amendment included

the exclusion of the evidence seized in violation

**1692 of its provisions. Even Wolf stoutly ad-

hered to that proposition. The right to privacy,

when conceded operatively enforceable against the

States, was not susceptible of destruction by avul-

sion of the sanction upon which its protection and

enjoyment had always been deemed dependent un-der the Boyd, Weeks and Silverthorne cases. There-

fore, in extending the substantive protections of due

process to all constitutionally unreasonable

searches-state or federal-it was *656 logically and

constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doc-

trine-an essential part of the right to privacy-be also

insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right

newly recognized by the Wolf case. In short, the

admission of the new constitutional right by Wolf

could not consistently tolerate denial of its most im-

portant constitutional privilege, namely, the exclu-

sion of the evidence which an accused had been

forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure. To

hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to

whthhold its privilege and enjoyment. Only last

year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of

the exclusionary rule is to deter-to compel respect

for the constitutional guaranty in the only effect-

ively available way-by removing the incentive to

disregard it. Elkins v. United States, supra, 364

U.S. at page 217, 80 S.Ct. at page 1444.

[6] Indeed, we are aware of no restraint, similar to

that rejected today, conditioning the enforcement of

any other basic constitutional right. The right to pri-

vacy, no less important than any other right care-

fully and particularly reserved to the people, would

stand in marked contrast to all other rights declared

as basic to a free society. Wolf v. People of State

of Colorado, supra, 338 U.S. at page 27, 69 S.Ct. at

page 1361. This Court has not hesitated to enforce

as strictly against the States as it does against the

Federal Government the rights of free speech and

of a free press, the rights to notice and to a fair,

public trial, including, as it does, the right not to be

convicted by use of a coerced confession, however

logically relevant it be, and without regard to its re-

liability. Rogers v. Richmond, 1961, 365 U.S.

534, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760. And nothing

could be more certain that that when a coerced con-

fession is involved, the relevant rules of evidence

are overridden without regard to the incidence of

such conduct by the police, slight or frequent. Why

should not the same rule